Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

• Computing
• Entertainment
• Humanities
• Language
• Mathematics
• Science
• Miscellaneous
• Archives

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

• Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
• Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
• Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
• Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
• Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
• Note:
  • We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
  • We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
  • We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
  • We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

• The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

September 7

Help me

Jmoore19- How do I request to split a sub article from an original article? I would like Stickball (Native American) to have its own page separate from the History of Lacrosse because stickball is the traditional version of the game and still played among many tribes. I also have some more modern day contributions to add to the article. --jmoore19 03:17, 7 September 2013 (UTC)Jmoore19--jmoore19 03:11, 7 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmoore19 (talk • contribs)

There are a few ways you could do this. You can list it at Wikipedia:Requested articles (I've done this for you). You could be bold and do it yourself, ideally following the process at Wikipedia:Splitting. Finally, you could leave a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America. There you're most likely to find editors with subject-area expertise who could work on this sort of thing (or alternatively Wikipedia:WikiProject Sports). You could also work on a draft in your userspace, such as User:Jmoore19/Stickball (Native American). Good luck, and let us know if we can help further. --BDD (talk) 04:08, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Name that book

I'm trying to help an acquaintance identify the author of a novel that she believes was published within the last few years. It's set in either Victorian or Regency England, and she remembers that the author researched the language of the time to ensure she (so presumably a female author) wouldn't use any anachronisms. The acquaintance thinks she read about this book on BoingBoing or Neatorama, though I haven't had any luck finding reference to such a thing on either site. --BDD (talk) 03:57, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

It could be plenty of authors, but I wonder whether you're referring to Mary Robinette Kowal? This article discusses her method of avoiding Regency anachronisms for her second novel. - Karenjc 10:29, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

That's the one! Thanks. --BDD (talk) 20:39, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Resolved

What type of fallacy is this?

One fallacy that I notice on occasion is the perfect solution fallacy, where a solution to a problem is rejected because it isn't perfect. Somewhat related to that is the acceptance of a proposed solution on the grounds that it is "better than nothing." In other words, an action is good because it is to not do nothing (e.g. police arrest one thief, then say they need not arrest any more thieves, and therefore the action of arresting one thief is equivalent to anything else beyond that, all the way to the "perfect solution"). What is the name of that fallacy? Thank you in advance. Vidtharr (talk) 23:37, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

See the perfect is the enemy of good. μηδείς (talk) 23:47, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Also see Yes Minister where this appears more than once: "...the Politicians' Syllogism: Step One: We must do something. Step Two: This is something. Step Three: Therefore we must do this. Logically, this akin to other equally famous syllogisms, such as: Step One: All dogs have four legs. Step Two: My cat has four legs. Step Three: Therefore my dog is a cat. The Politicians' Syllogism has been responsible for many of the disasters that befell the United Kingdom in the twentieth century, including the Munich Agreement and the Suez Adventure." (Yes Prime Minister II, pp. 130-1). One could comment that certain of today's politicians should heed this advice, but that might be interpreted as soapboxing.TrohannyEoin (talk) 10:45, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

The second fallacy in that extract is undistributed middle, incidentally, but it doesn't really cover the OP's example. Tevildo (talk) 14:52, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Broadly related is the aphorism "To a man with a hammer, every problem looks like a nail", which probably has a formal name if I could but think of it. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 13:43, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Law of the instrument, per Abraham Maslow. -- Deborahjay (talk) 15:51, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Deborahjay. You nailed it! {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 12:30, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

September 8

Poetical testament

I stubbed this entry for the DYK of Testament mój. The phrase appears to be used in English, but perhaps there's a better one? I cannot find any good sources to expand this tiny stub through my searchers for this term (Polish ones, which I know do define it this genra, known in Polish language as testament poetycki, are rarely previewable on Google due to copyright outside of tiny snippets). Would be nice to turn Template:Did you know nominations/Testament mój into a double DYK, if somebody could help find better sources (or tell me a better name for this genra in English). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:43, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I can't help much, but I'll throw out a couple random thoughts, in case they're helpful. I immediately think of François Villon's Le Testament (that should tell you how strongly this registers as a genre in English -- I first think of a medieval French poem!); although this is clearly of a different character than Testament mój, it might be easier to find information about this type of poem by looking up what people have said about this or other specific examples, rather than trying to search on the genre (or sub-sub-genre?) itself. Other possible analogues that come to mind are Chaucer's Retraction and other similar works... sort of the opposite of a testament: "how I do not want to be remembered". Chaucer's Retraction is in fact in prose, but is by a poet about poetry and ending an almost-all-verse work. Good luck! Phil wink (talk) 20:08, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Causing death maliciously and legally?

In the TV series Dexter, in season 7, Dexter lures a mob boss to a bar of a rivaling gang, where the boss finds himself in a shoot-out, trying to save his own life. Had he died as a result, would Dexter be legally responsible? The mob boss stalked him there of his own will, so it seems he didn't technically brake any law. Thanks, 84.109.248.221 (talk) 13:04, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

In Florida, definitely. See Ryan Holle for a real-life example of a murder conviction based on a far more tenuous connection with the death. See also the general murder article. Tevildo (talk) 14:41, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

They would have to prove it, of course. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:09, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

The Ryan Holle Case is not strange, he supposedly knowingly lent the getaway vehicle in a robbery gone bad. That's run-of-the-mill felony murder. Felony murder wouldn't apply in Dexter's case unless he was involved in some crime in cooperation with the shooter which led to the boss's death. μηδείς (talk) 18:15, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

The key in the Dexter case might be whether anyone knew what he was up to, i.e. if he told anyone in advance - or if he came up with this in his own head and kept it there. If the latter, then he shouldn't be legally responsible, even if he is morally responsible. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:46, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

You are suggesting conspiracy, Bugs? I don't watch the show, so speculating as to what's going on is a little difficult from my end. μηδείς (talk) 19:07, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I've never seen the show, nor even heard of it until the OP's question. I'm just saying, given the OP's scenario, how Dexter might or might not be legally culpable. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:49, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

A good DA may be able to cobble together a case of reckless endangerment or maybe depraved indifference. Whether a jury would convict...that's a whole different question.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 20:03, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Those are civil law, not necessarily criminal standards, and they apply when there is some duty of care. Unless Dexter were the owner of the property or he was the boss's physician or acting as some sort of licensed agent, as opposed to a bystander, there would be no case. μηδείς (talk) 20:10, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Those are most definitely criminal law terms and are defined as such by statute in most jurisdictions (see, for one quick example, here) and "duty of care" can be a consideration, but is not a required element. But, again, that's why I say a case could be cobbled together, didn't say it would be a good case...but in states with Grand Jury indictments, who knows what would fly.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 20:35, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

So your point is there is such a thing as criminal negligence? μηδείς (talk) 20:39, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't strike me as a case of negligence. From the description, it sounds like Dexter intended for the mob boss to find himself in a dangerous situation. I'm not a lawyer, but I suspect that would qualify as malice aforethought and first-degree murder, with no need to invoke "wanton indifference" or felony murder (not sure what the predicate felony would be in any case).

On the other hand the Holle case is truly shocking. If the felony-murder rule leads to that result, it's a good argument for changing it somehow. --Trovatore (talk) 20:50, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

The OP and/or someone familiar with the show and that episode, needs to inform us whether anyone besides Dexter and the TV audience for this fictional presentation knew what Dexter was up to, or could somehow find out what Dexter was up to. If not, I don't see how he could be charged with anything. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:58, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

The question was whether he was legally responsible, not whether he could get caught. --Trovatore (talk) 21:05, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Dexter knew that the mob boss will try to stalk him and searched online for a bar of the rivaling gang, in hope that the boss would get killed (he survived, but let's assume he hadn't). However, the police in the series has no way to prove any malice aforethought (although the audience knows there was). 84.109.248.221 (talk) 21:28, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Malice aforethought is the difference between first and second degree murder, not second-degree murder and felony homicide per se. If Dexter lured the guy into danger without either committing some crime in doing so or some crime in causing the danger he has no criminal culpability I can think of. μηδείς (talk) 22:24, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that's true, Medeis. If you lure someone into danger with the intent that he be injured, as I say I'm not a lawyer, but I believe that is in itself a crime, and if he dies it's probably murder one, with the malice aforethought being there directly and not having to be imputed to anything (so the felony-murder rule in particular is irrelevant). --Trovatore (talk) 06:28, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

But with no evidence, how would you prove it in court? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:32, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Completely separate question, irrelevant. --Trovatore (talk) 16:43, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

If you can't be charged with a crime, how can you be considered criminally responsible? Like if the speed limit is 70 and I hit an open stretch and push the speed up to 95, and then slow back down, have I committed a traffic violation? Technically, yes. But unless someone caught me, legally speaking it didn't happen. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:44, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Bugs, you're mixing up epistemology with reality. The question here is just what's true, not what can be proved. --Trovatore (talk) 00:54, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

And you're mixing me up further with every response. Explain to dumb li'l ol' me, in single-syllable words that I can understand, how the guy is legally culpable for anything. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:25, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Because I keep thinking back to this comment in a movie, about a guy arrested for no good reason: "He might beat his mother every day and twice on Sunday, but as far as the law is concerned, he hasn't done a thing." Why is that incorrect? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:27, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

That's probably about the presumption of innocence. The law treats you as innocent assuming your guilt has not been proved. But that's a different question from the actual definition of what it means to be factually guilty. --Trovatore (talk) 01:37, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

The OP asked if he was "legally responsible". Maybe he was, in some theoretical way. But if no one else knew what he was up to, and if no one else could know (no comments to others about his plan, no record of such a plan), then as a practical matter, he can't be charged - unless he decides to confess. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:39, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

@ Trovatore, there are indeed certain civil law concepts like attractive nuisance which might be applicable depending on circumstances, but you'd have to come up with an example and a name of a crime to convince me there was a criminal charge that could be brought. μηδείς (talk) 00:41, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Attractive nuisance is about accidents. This is not an accident. If you arrange circumstances intending for someone to get killed, and he gets killed in those circumstances, in my non-expert understanding, that's murder, regardless of whether you pulled the trigger. (Well, it could also be self-defense, I suppose, depending, but that's justification, not absence of malice.) --Trovatore (talk) 00:54, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

When I take the time to say "concepts like", "which might be applicable", and "depending on circumstances" you can be assured I have done so for a purpose. The example given here essentially of inviting someone to a bad neighborhood has nothing to do with the accused physically acting to cause a death in the way putting poison in his food or digging a mantrap would. You could probably sue Dexter for wrongful death, which, yet again, is a civil charge. μηδείς (talk) 01:07, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

What if you know someone wants a showdown with you, so you drive past his car, then lead him up a winding unlit mountain road where you know there's a a bridge out (you should be driving a 1947 Cadillac, with ominous music playing on your radio). Then at the last minute you turn hard out of the way and let him go over the cliff. Is that murder (assuming it's not self-defense)? I bet it is. --Trovatore (talk) 01:12, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

In other words, what if someone who wants to kill you drives recklessly enough that he is killed by road conditions you didn't cause? μηδείς (talk) 01:35, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

That you didn't cause, but that you did know about, and that you deliberately led him to, yes. Pretty sure that's murder (again, assuming it's not self-defense). --Trovatore (talk) 01:40, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

No, again, that might be a civil matter if it could be shown you had a duty of care. This has gotten bizarre when you are aruguing tha escaping from someone who wants to kill you amounts to murder. μηδείς (talk) 01:50, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

As I said, unless it's self-defense. That's the only relevance of the "wants to kill you" part. Duty of care is irrelevant — you are working actively to get him killed, not merely failing to prevent it. --Trovatore (talk) 01:56, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

If evolution doesn't exist ...

Moved from the Moved to the Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science

... and Adam and Eve are the origin of everything: how do races exist? Shouldn't we be all the same? OsmanRF34 (talk) 15:03, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

That question is more appropriate for Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities, since there is obviously no scientific answer to a question that involves Adam and Eve. Surtsicna (talk) 15:12, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

From a scientific (evolutionary) point of view, there is some evidence that we are all descended from an "Adam" and an "Eve" (but the problem is that they didn't live at the same time). See Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam. It takes many, many thousands of years of separate development without interbreeding for people with common ancestors to accumulate sufficient random genetic differences to be regarded as different "races" (if that concept has any scientific validity), but if you don't believe in evolution, I suppose you can claim that the genetic differences were not random, so separation of races occurred much more rapidly (not in 6000 years, though). There are many different viewpoints on this topic, so please don't take my observations as the start of an argument or long discussion. I expect that you've read more of our article on Intelligent design than I have. Dbfirs 16:11, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

If the OP is asking about the biblical Adam and Eve, there's an "explanation" in Genesis. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:28, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, how does the bible explain the existence of different races? OsmanRF34 (talk) 16:53, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

The story of the Tower of Babel explains it. --TammyMoet (talk) 16:56, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

It explain how humanity got divided in nations, but, if you don't believe in evolution, how does it come that people look different? OsmanRF34 (talk) 17:07, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Here's an article about race from Answers in Genesis, a creationist organization: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/are-there-different-races. Surprising to me that they take the view that mainstream scholars take: the concept of race is not scientifically well-defined and the genetic differences between races are so small as to be meaningless in any moral sense. Lucky for them, downplaying the differences between races makes it seem more plausible that they could've developed over a period of only a few thousand years. (Or all at once in a miracle after the tower of babel.) Staecker (talk) 16:58, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Don't shoot me, I'm just the messenger, but look at some interpretations of the Mark of Cain. Mingmingla (talk) 17:03, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

• Also see the story of Noah and the flood. After the flood, Noah's sons go off and settle in different parts of the world... the implication is that each of the various races are descended from a different son. Blueboar (talk) 17:11, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah! And how do they explain that descendants of different sons look so different? Did they evolved to adapt to a new environment, or did god send them exotic looking wifes?OsmanRF34 (talk) 17:25, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Is that a serious, or an unserious challenge to what you imply is nonsense? μηδείς (talk) 21:57, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

It's not a challenge. I was just asking for clarification. Having three sons and each looking so different, implies that the mothers would look different. The bible is full of inconsistencies, so I won't be surprised if there is no further explanation about this.OsmanRF34 (talk) 22:07, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

• According to the Bible, the three races of Africa, Asia and Europe originated from the three sons of Noah, Ham, Shem, and Japheth. These would be the Blacks, the Semites, and the Non-Semite Whites. This classification survived into the Enlightenment. It gives rise to the Afroasiatic language family's traditional name, Hamito-Semitic which (invalidly) grouped white speakers under Semitic and black under Hamitic. Of course there are other stories like the mark of Cain and more Greco-Roman influenced classifications where the blacks are the Nubians and central Asian people whom we might call Mongoloid are broadly termed the Scythians. Before Columbus, focus seems to have been on "nations" like the Blemmyes which evolved in myth to Blemmyes (legendary creatures). Race in the modern sense became the matter of innocent natural historical observation, but led to theories of supremacy that were blended with justifications for slavery and colonization. These developments are quite remote from the original biblical notions. See also, Japhetic. μηδείς (talk) 18:10, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses have published information at http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101989257 and http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/102006325?q=microevolution&p=par.

—Wavelength (talk) 18:50, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Wavelength, the Amish, is posting again links to the Mormons. OsmanRF34 (talk) 22:21, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Is there some law against being Amish or Mormon? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:34, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Nope, but spam is certainly not welcome everywhere. Sometimes Wavelength is pushy, not being always on topic. OsmanRF34 (talk) 22:44, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

He's not being pushy. He's providing references to a certain point of view, and giving a clear indication as to the source of the point of view, and he's keeping it low key and certainly not being argumentative or forceful. --Jayron32 01:57, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• To take this from a different angle, creationists generally don't say that evolution doesn't exist at all -- the ability to breed altered varieties of dogs or plants is undeniable. What they say is that evolution is incapable of creating a new species. I believe they would consider different races of people to be on the same level as different breeds of dogs. Looie496 (talk) 02:58, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

They are on the same level, scientifically, aren't they? ( ... except that there is probably less difference between races than between breeds, and breeds have taken less than 35,000 years to diverge -- some only a hundred years!) Dbfirs 08:11, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but Looie still has a point. Scientifically the mechanism might be the same (mutation and selection) in both cases (create different breeds or different species). However, creationists are not a part of science nor they seem to react to it (it was wrong once, it could be wrong again; god wants you to think this way; accept what's mysterious; whatever). Evolution is restricted for the creationists, so there is nothing to explain regarding my question. OsmanRF34 (talk) 08:36, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I read your question as why did dogs change rapidly but humans not so much in the last period X. On the one hand, as a non-expert, I would think Humans are relatively well adapted for living in most places, so one would expect only minor evolutionary changes over time and also humans are rarely geographically fragmented since humans have always travelled far and wide. For example, the vikings in constantinople. On the other hand I don't consider it that surprising that Dogs changed quite rapidly. To contrast with Humans, dogs had an intelligent designer: Us to pick for specific purposes and to remove obstacles like scarcity of food or the disadvantage of certain variations and to also artificially separate the different breeds from interbreeding. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:45, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

For dogs, see Origin of the domestic dog#Neoteny in the rapid evolution of diverse dog breeds. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:53, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

---

By the way, the ancient Israelites or Jews of Biblical times simply didn't have a concept of race in any quasi-modern sense. They were aware of the existence of black people (in remote areas at the edge of the world as known to the Israelites), but non-travelers rarely came into direct contact with them. The Table of Nations of the Book of Genesis (chapter 10), in the form that we have it today is basically a tabulation of the peoples known to the ancient Israelites ca. the 7th century B.C. It is organized into descendants of Shem (broadly speaking those who had somewhat similar cultural/linguistic origins to the Israelites), descendants of Japheth (culturally exotic types at the far north of the world as known to the Israelites, living in areas such as Anatolia), and descendants of Ham (culturally exotic types living in areas significantly to the west of the Israelites, and also some disliked/despised peoples living near the Israelites, who were assigned to Ham in order to distance them from Israelites). None of these subgroupings was intended to be racial in nature. Some of the logic involved in expressing social and geographical distance by means of genealogies is the same as in a high-level Segmentary lineage system (not explained very well in the article on the subject)... AnonMoos (talk) 22:24, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I suspect people are projecting modern biases onto the ancient world here. Simple Darwinism is that change in pigmentation has to be the result of random mutations, but long before Lamarck and Lysenko there were surely laymen who simply assumed that Africans had been darkened by countless generations of suntanning. (In truth, there may well be more of a role of epigenetics, especially inheritance of acquired characteristics, than we realize, even in the fixation of mutations at methylated sites - I ought to check back on how deeply people have gone into the population biology of skin color by now. There certainly are biological mechanisms by which melanocyte stimulating hormone sites in the gonads could become the target of alterations that last for generations in response to tanning) Wnt (talk) 22:46, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Is North Korea so poor and under-developed because of communism?

^Topic. ScienceApe (talk) 21:43, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

That depends on how you define communism. But it is poor because it is a dictatorially run centrally controlled economy, and it is poorer than it was before the current "communist" rule, and poorer than it would have been with the same rule as the South. μηδείς (talk) 21:55, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

"We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate". AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:57, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Or speculation or alternative history. OsmanRF34 (talk) 22:08, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

No, there has never been a communist country.
211.30.157.65 (talk) 22:18, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

This is a pretty textbook case of a controlled experiment. What, besides "communist" (Kim) rule, explains the difference? μηδείς (talk) 22:19, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

The difference between what and what? There is no 'control' here whatsoever. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:25, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, you have the non-communist South and the communist North Korea. However, there are other variables, besides being communist that are also relevant to the comparison. OsmanRF34 (talk) 22:42, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

The 'non-communist South' isn't a 'control'. It's history (including its economic and political development) has clearly been affected by what went on in the north. There is simply no way to ascertain what 'would have happened' in an alternate history. This can only ever be speculation - and this isn't a forum for speculation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:47, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Don't grump at me. I agree that it's not a control, but people will use it as a kinda scientific proof about why communism doesn't work. You could also have used West/East Germany or Cuba/some prosperous Caribbean country. OsmanRF34 (talk) 22:54, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Compare living standards in Cuba with Haiti and Dominican Republic, and the picture becomes more complex. There are tons of people wanting to leave those places to migrate to the US, the difference lies in that Cubans don't get deported. --Soman (talk) 01:40, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Is there any significant effort made to stop someone from leaving the DR if they want to? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:04, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

No true communist...? Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:14, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Being a dictatorship? Being completed disconnected from almost all the rest of the world? OsmanRF34 (talk) 22:23, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Are you ignorant of the meaning of my scare quotes around "communism" and my reference to Kim rule, Osman? Please say something actually relevant to the issue. μηδείς (talk) 00:30, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Why would that quotes have a random meaning that you want to attach them? Admit your mistakes Merdeis. OsmanRF34 (talk) 06:24, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

The South was a dictatorship too for a fair amount of time, so being one of those isn't the determining factor. Mingmingla (talk) 00:15, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

The South was authoritarian, and has evolved into a democracy. The north was and has stayed a totalitarian state. See the Kirkpatrick Doctrine. Not only is it bizarre to deny this is not a textbook political experiment, it behooves the skeptics to explain how the North's self-imposed starvation helps the trade-partner seeking south. μηδείς (talk) 00:28, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I've read in a number of news articles that North Korea was more or less on an even level of development with South Korea (or sometimes even ahead) until at least the early 1970s. During the 1970s, presumably, South Korea started to take off as an "Asian tiger", while North Korea relatively stagnated because most of the work of recovery and reconstruction after the War was done, and most of the low-hanging fruit that could be achieved by means of a Stalin-style centrally-planned economy with emphasis on heavy industry (accompanied by inefficient agriculture and semi-neglected consumer industries) had already been accomplished. By the way, the original poster may not be aware that North Korea hasn't really been "communist" in any conventional way for a long time. For a number of decades, Juche has overshadowed Marxism-Leninism, while more recently Songun seems to be overshadowing Juche. The most recent version of the North Korean constitution reportedly doesn't mention communism at all... AnonMoos (talk) 21:51, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Given that this is a historical speculation on a (pathetically framed) single analytical point of causation, there will be no answer. Historiography repeatedly demonstrates plurality of causes, and the need to analyse actual historical societies in the context of multiple forms of simultaneous causation. A start in reading might be Simon Pirani, Vladimir Andrle, Sheila Fitzpatrick for their recent work on a broadly similar society, where popular and mass proletarian revolution was destroyed by a bureaucratic party run by intellectuals and bourgeois; and the Korean Institute of Military History's section on the causes of the Korean War in particular on the internal elimination of pluralist Stalinism / Maoism in the Korean party in favour of the Juche idea. So the answer is a resounding "no." to the question, amplified with a "this question is bad, and worse, wrong." Fifelfoo (talk) 00:30, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

North Korea was certainly underdeveloped as of 1945, and until the 1980s the country experienced considerable advances. Comparisons with South Korea are debatable, but an important factor to the South's economic progress is that since South Korea were such a crucial point in the Cold War the U.S. allowed a degree of protectionism of national industries (hardly a neoliberal doctrine). So, one could say that the prosperity of the south is partly explained by communist rule in the north. However, the point is that the economy of North Korea pretty much collapsed at the time of the fall of the Soviet Union. No country, regardless of the political doctrine of its leadership, would have passed untouched by such an event. --Soman (talk) 01:46, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

NK vs SK and East Germany vs West Germany are both good comparisons, but Cuba vs some other Carribean island is not, since there are many islands with completely different cultures, histories, etc., to choose from, so everyone will pick the one that demonstrates whatever they want to show. StuRat (talk) 12:05, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd say that Cuba and DR is pretty much comparable in terms of culture, history (similar in size, economic structure, colonial history), probably more similar than say Prussia and Bavaria. Comparing Cuba with Cayman Islands, on the other hand, would be a flawed comparison. --Soman (talk) 12:52, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Have there been any countries in recent memory where you have to get permission to leave, besides the so-called communist countries? (USSR and its satellites, China, North Korea, Cuba) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:21, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Every time I've exited Australia I've needed permission from the state by filling out a form. The fact that this permission was readily given pro-forma on a document I completed in 30 seconds at the airport doesn't change that. Maybe you mean, "Where permission to leave is often denied; or perceived by the population or world community for good cause as likely to be denied"? Fifelfoo (talk) 22:37, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Generally, the only way you can leave a place like Cuba is by defecting or otherwise escaping. In Australia, obviously it's a rubber-stamp situation. Huge difference. My guess is that they want to make sure you're not a fugitive from justice. In repressive states, in effect everyone is a fugitive. The reason they won't let people leave is because they would most likely not want to come back to their "people's republic". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:02, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• It's not quite as simple as that, ScienceApe.

For the first twenty years or so after the Korean War, North Korea was actually even more developed than its southern counterpart. The former had a strong industrial base (although it was at least partially based on forced labour), whereas the latter's economy relied almost exclusively on agriculture. This gradually began to change from the 1960s through to the 1990s due to several different factors. Firstly, South Korea had an economic miracle of sorts. Dictator Park Chung-hee diversified the South Korean economy through government cooperation with the private sector and increased revenue from exports, inducing massive GDP growth on all fronts. By contrast, Kim Il-sung's regime up north was working to further isolate itself from the outside world through it's policy of self-reliance, known as Juche. However, this was not sustainable in its own right, and North Korea was left depending on massive subsidies from the Soviet Union to maintain a stable economy. This also came at a time when the government was increasingly focused on military spending, largely due to the growing influence of heir apparent Kim Jong-il. After the fall of communism and the dissolution of the USSR, North Korea was left almost entirely without any sort of financial aid. Kim Il-sung died in 1994 and Kim Jong-il officially took the reigns. He quickly shifted his focus onto expanding the country's military.

Two things happened that caused the catastrophic famine of 1994-1998:

1. China began facing grain shortages and had to cut subsidies to North Korea.
2. North Korea experienced massive flooding which destroyed acres of arable land and tonnes of underground emergency supplies.

Up to 3,000,000 died of starvation during this four-year period. But even now, despite large financial aid from China and other countries, the majority of North Koreans suffer from malnourishment and are left fending for themselves while the government focuses most of its energy on an unpredictable foreign policy. South Korea, on the other hand, has become a democratic society with a highly developed economy.

So in a sense, communism has factored into the destitute living conditions of North Korea. But what it really boils down to is the fact that they are almost completely isolated from the outside world. Aside from their own unwillingness to make contact with other nations, the North Korean government has been placed under strict sanctions by the UN, the United States, and several other international bodies for their numerous provocative activities, not least of which is their nuclear weapons program. Their purported communist ideology is irrelevant; any government can be responsible for such economic mismanagement on a grand scale. They don't have enough money to support their people, and the funding they do get is diverted to arms and munitions.

Basically, the reason North Korea is so poor is because the government doesn't care about its people. Kurtis ^(talk) 11:08, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, this couldn't happen to the same degree in a democratic nation, because those who caused the problem would soon be voted out of office. It also couldn't happen to the same degree with open borders, as there would be a mass migration of the starving to other nations, as in the Irish Potato Famine. Capitalism would also limit such an event, as so many starving people, willing to trade all they had for food, would provide overwhelming financial incentives to produce or obtain food. So, it has to be a totalitarian, centrally-controlled economy with closed borders. StuRat (talk) 13:37, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Capitalist democracy with open borders: Bengal famine of 1943; part of a known system of famine and neglect, btw. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:07, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

September 9

Question regarding the Tower of Babel myth

From our article:

As people migrated from the east, they settled in the land of Shinar. People there sought to make bricks and build a city and a tower with its top in the sky, to make a name for themselves, so that they not be scattered over the world. God came down to look at the city and tower, and remarked that as one people with one language, nothing that they sought would be out of their reach. God went down and confounded their speech, so that they could not understand each other, and scattered them over the face of the earth, and they stopped building the city.

Why would God do this? Surely humanity working together would be a good thing? I get that the implication is that humanity shouldn't have near-infinite power, but surely scattering them across the Earth and confounding their language made everything far, far worse? I mean, according to this myth, all wars between different nations, all division in humanity, all the pain, suffering, and agony that has struck history all emanates from God taking a glance at humanity's success and deciding that it's too much. What am I missing here? — Richard BB 08:53, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Independence from the Father, is not a good thing. All the man-made divisions, pain, suffering and agony, are a result of people not learning this lesson. So, people care more about their own wellbeing than each other's. Plasmic Physics (talk) 09:30, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Think of it the other way around - they saw that there were people spread all over the earth, speaking different languages, and they had no idea why that was. This is the myth they came up with to explain it. (In that light, does it have to make actual sense?) This is also why God acts differently in Genesis, which is full of more archaic myths with a less nuanced God character. Adam Bishop (talk) 10:42, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that last part is the key. In Genesis, the concept of God seems quite primitive, he's just a guy who walks around and has to see things to know they happened. Not the omnipresent God that is presented later in the Bible. Thus, with such a limited God, all the people working together could be a real threat to His power. Of course, all this brings up the question of why God is presented in such totally different ways in different parts of the Bible (sometimes loving and peaceful, sometimes downright vicious). But, that's a Q for another day. StuRat (talk) 11:52, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

As my church minister used to say, "God has never changed - it's only humanity's concept of God which has changed." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:29, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I never did like the plot holiness of Genesis. Depending on the circumstances, I have to flip-flop on my view of parts of it as fact or fiction. When I'm in a scientific mood, fiction, because it is irreconcilable with our current understanding of history and other sciences. When I'm in a religious mood, then fact, because despite the incoherencies, the important parts make the rest of Scripture work. Despite this ambivalence, I choose to remain faithful, because I have ongoing positive life experiences casually related to my perseverance, which to me proves it worthwhile; and I find myself enjoying life more than before.

PS God didn't change from the Old Testament to the New Testament, He just changed His tactics. Somewhere in the New Testament, it says that He used all the punishments (like death and destruction, etc.) in the Old Testament as examples of what sinners really deserve, but because of His extended grace/mercy, He puts off until the end times. Plasmic Physics (talk) 13:13, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Definitely a citation is needed for that argument. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:18, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

1 Corinthians 10, the verse that I'm talking about is verse eleven, but it must be understood in the context of the whole chapter. Plasmic Physics (talk) 22:00, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• Hey, you got the right idea, bud. For questions like this, you wanna make sure go to the people you can unreservedly trust the most. You wanna go to a bunch of random strangers on the internet. I like that! 71.246.154.137 (talk) 13:44, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

The reference desk is here for exactly this kind of reason. I think I can get away with a mild theological question on the Internet. It's not like I'm asking for financial advice. — Richard BB 14:07, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

The present heading of this section (In the Tower of Babel myth in the Bible, why did God confound humanity's speech and scatter them across the Earth?) is unnecessarily long. The heading Tower of Babel: confusion and scattering is adequately brief and adequately informative. Please see Microcontent: How to Write Headlines, Page Titles, and Subject Lines.

—Wavelength (talk) 15:10, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Shortened. — Richard BB 15:19, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

It's been a while, but doesn't the Bible itself answer that question? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:26, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

With so many interpretations and commentaries over the years by scholars from two religions on both literal and symbolic levels and everything in between, I don't really know where you would begin. Focus On Tower of Babel is an interesting essay available on the Oxford Biblical Studies Online that not only traces some of the major lines of thinking over time but offers a few citations for further reading.184.147.119.141 (talk) 18:43, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Interestingly, many years later, mankind attempted a similar project and was punished in a similar manner. Horatio Snickers (talk) 20:01, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Tom Lehrer said that the reason most folk songs are so atrocious is that they were written by "the people". If he were still writing satirical songs, I wonder what he would have to say about wikipedia? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:18, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Crashed airliner - airline name and logo painted out

This Thai Airways A330 just skidded off the runway in Bangkok [BBC story here] and they've already painted over the Thai Airways logo on the tail and the name on the front. I've seen British Airways doing the same thing.

Who do they think they're fooling? Why do they do it? Hayttom 11:13, 9 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hayttom (talk • contribs)

"a routine practice", apparently. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 11:31, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

You've heard "a picture is worth a 1000 words" ? Well, a picture of plane wreckage with their logo on it is far worse publicity than 1000 words about it. Of course, these days, the news orgs could just put the logo right back on it electronically. That would only seem fair. StuRat (talk) 11:44, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

While perhaps morally just, such an action would constitute image doctoring. This practice is generally viewed extremely poorly, as noted here, and with good reason. The more honest thing to do would be to note in the photo caption that the wreckage was freshly painted over. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 17:31, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

That wouldn't counter the problem, that the airline has managed to make it hard for people to remember they had an accident by removing their logo from all images, getting people to trust them again more quickly, and possibly risking their lives, if the issues that caused the crash were not addressed. Instead, I'd like the news org to restore the logo electronically, and state in the caption that this is what they did. StuRat (talk) 07:47, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

OP here. The Guardian has now also commented on the 'routine practice' here, with "A Thai Airways official, Smud Poom-on, said that blurring the logo after an accident was a recommendation from Star Alliance known as the "crisis communication rule", meant to protect the image of both the airline and other members of Star Alliance." Again, do they really think we cannot identify the airline? [As I know the practice is common after crashes, I'd like to think The Guardian picked up on my question. Ok, probably not...] Hayttom 20:38, 9 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hayttom (talk • contribs)

The point is not that they think we can't identify the airline. The point is that they think knowing intellectually (from reading the story) that it was a Thai Airways plane has less impact than seeing it was a Thai Airways plane. Whether they're right or not and whether that benefit is outweighed by the impression of shadiness produced by the spray paint are open questions. Henry^Flower 00:37, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Exactly, a picture has more impact and is remembered longer than just a written story. You will note in missing white woman syndrome, that a photograph, or better yet a movie, is always needed. StuRat (talk) 07:50, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Even in this thread there is a tendency to want to hold the particular airline wholly responsible for the incident. A picture showing the airline's logo just reinforces that tendency. And it may not be the airline's fault at all. Qantas Flight 32 was a case in point. It happened at a time when Qantas was going through some image problems, and the media and critics had a field day, painting the airline in as bad a light as possible. It turned out that the fault was entirely due to the Rolls Royce engines. Similar faults were found in the same model engines on other airlines' planes. So the airline wasn't at fault at all. The engine manufacturer was. But nobody photographed the Rolls Royce engine brand logo and saturated world news with it. Nobody apologised to Qantas for the bad press. I don't blame Thai Airways in the slightest for lowering its profile here. HiLo48 (talk) 07:59, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the Qantas case you mention, but on the face of it, it seems perfectly reasonable to hold the airline responsible. It's their responsibility to check the airworthiness of their aircraft. If they didn't spot that there was something wrong with the engines, they are indeed at fault. --Viennese Waltz 11:41, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

If the matter had ever gone to court, I think there would have been slightly more scrutiny of all the relevant facts than has occurred on this page, so please do not suddenly appoint yourself judge, jury and executioner. As it was, the matter was settled between Qantas and Rolls-Royce. The total cost of repairs was around US$145 million, of which Rolls-Royce forked out the lion's share of US$100 million. Enough said. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:48, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

And that final fact definitely didn't didn't make it to the front page of the papers or the lead articles on the TV news. It publicly remained all Qantas' fault. HiLo48 (talk) 22:54, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I can't think it would damage Quantas' otherwise excellent safety record for long. On the other hand, if they tried to whitewash their name off the plane for the pics, the attempted cover-up might very well be remembered longer than the event. This is often the case with cover-ups.

I also agree that the airline has the ultimate responsibility to ensure that the planes are safe. Otherwise, you can have a classic subcontractor blame game, where the main company avoids any responsibility for problems by farming the work out to subcontractors, paying them so little that they must cut corners, then blaming them when they do. StuRat (talk) 13:24, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

But what an incredibly dumb approach to take. That is quintessential lose-lose-lose (the company, the subbies, and the paying public). -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:32, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Tolkien and poverty

Hi friends, google-fu is failing me. JRRT Tolkien's letters often refer to worries about money and to taking on extra academic tasks (such as proctoring examinations) to earn more. Yet as I understand it, he was a university professor. Was it not a well-paying job in the 1920s-50s? Or was there another factor that caused such cash-flow worries? Thank you.184.147.119.141 (talk) 18:04, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

From ODNB: "J. R. R. Tolkien's early life bears witness to continuing...insecurity... [His father] died ... leaving only a few hundred pounds in shares as support for his widow. For a time Mabel Tolkien economized ..., she was obliged to move into town, living in one rented house after another. Her financial situation was not eased by her conversion to Roman Catholicism in 1900, which caused an estrangement from some members of her family; and on 14 November 1904 she too died young, of diabetes" I believe "continuing...insecurity" equates to "worries about money". Tommy Pinball (talk) 20:27, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

People in many different eras find that they have to economise, or worry about money, to make their expenditure better fit their income. University professors of the 1920s were certainly not rich in the way that American university professors of the modern era are (relatively) rich. To a certain extent, an Oxbridge undergraduate in the early part of the 20th century would be expected to have substantial means of their own (their family would have more than an average income, certainly), thus most people who eventually became full professors would not be from poor backgrounds (there were scholarships, though), and the universities did not see good reasons to make them wealthy in a large way. This had rather reversed by the 1950s, when financial subsidies to poorer students attending Oxbridge were greater than they are today.

Many of Tolkein's most famous works were written during the 1940s, and the analyses of his works by (amongst others) Christopher Tolkein, make note of the fact that these works were largely written on re-used paper that had already been used as examination papers - Tolkein literally wrote his famous works between the lines of what had already been written on the page. The easy explanation is to say "well, paper was rationed", but really it wasn't; he was just being careful with resources, just like any responsible - and perhaps parsimonious - person. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:27, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the answers; I find it interesting that university profs weren`t as well paid as today.184.147.119.141 (talk) 14:17, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

There were different expectations regarding pay. In the 1920s, most Oxford professors would live in rooms in their college, eat in their college, and socialise in their college (or the colleges of their peers). Nowadays very very few live in college. In the 1920s, a professor's pay might not, for example, easily stretch to expensive innovations like motor cars - these days they would expect it to cover two cars, foreign holidays, purchasing property in Oxford (not cheap!) and so on.

You could also compare with the situation of a modern graduate student at Oxford. They often live in college provided accommodation, they generally have to teach in order to bring in money, and if they're not independently wealthy then they certainly have to think carefully about budgeting. In the later part of the period you mention, Tolkein also had a growing family to support. So it's not really poverty as such, but more an awareness of what Dickens wrote about the big difference between one's income slightly exceeding one's expenditure, and the other way round. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:40, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

18thC Head dress

Leonhard Euler

David Hume

The respective portraits of contemporaries, Leonhard Euler and David Hume, show them with similar headgear. What is the story behind these two intellectual heavyweights wearing silly hats? Tommy Pinball (talk) 20:14, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

See Banyan (clothing) which refers to an Eastern style jacket, worn as a morning gown, which often went with "a soft, turban-like cap worn in place of the formal periwig". There are several other examples in the Wikimedia Commons category Commons:Category:Deshabille in art. The cap and frock seems to have been worn as leisureclothing by European gentlemen throughout the 18th century (Deshabille apparently meaning "1. the state of being carelessly or partially dressed. 2. Archaic. a loose morning dress; negligee." according to this free dictionary). --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:30, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

It was common to wear such caps when not wearing a wig. It kept one's shaven head warm. Men in the higher social classes at that time wore wigs over shaven heads. It was a fashion, of course, but it also a way of keeping you free of lice. The portraits show them in their "informal" rather than formal personas. It's a way of making the image seem more intimate and natural. Hogarth's Self Portrait at Work shows him with his shaven head under a soft cap. Paul B (talk) 13:53, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

That's very interesting. Makes me wonder if that was the origin of the style of dress seen in some portraits of Native Americans of the 18th and early 19th centuries, especially the famous portrait of Sequoyah. Pfly (talk) 19:48, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Did Hitler offer to deport all the Jews in Occupied Europe to the Soviet Union?

Timothy Snyder in his book Bloodlands, says that many of the Jews from western Nazi-occupied Poland fled into eastern Soviet-occupied Poland, and that some of them were deported by Stalin to Kazakhstan where they survived the Holocaust.

According to Timothy Snyder, Hitler wanted to go further than just sending the Polish Jews into the USSR, but actually offered to Stalin to deport the entire Jewish population in Nazi Europe to the Soviet Union but Stalin turned this down.

Does anyone have historical information about this? --Gary123 (talk) 20:23, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Snyder's book probably does. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:20, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

No he only mentions it in passing as a sidenote, which why I was asking if anyone had more in depth sources. --Gary123 (talk) 00:40, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, perhaps we'll make do with the source Prof. Snyder cites {ahem} for that sidenote on Hitler's rejected offer to Stalin. If you could provide that — since my workplace library only has Bloodlands in the Hebrew translation I can't skim so readily — I can get on it. I can already state, though, that "Hitler...sending the Polish Jews into the USSR" doesn't conform to accounts I've read; rather (as written in your first sentence) with the invasion of Poland, Jews by the thousands fled across the Bug River into Soviet territory; many (especially families) returned when they found no accommodations there. In The Jews in the Soviet Union since 1917: Paradox of Survival (1988, NYU Press), Nora Levin cites a Polish government order at the start of the war, for "all men up to age 45 to go to the east where the government would try to create a new army." Then in June 1940, "250,000 former Polish citizens who refused to accept the Soviet passport were sent to the northern part of Siberia, the part called Komi ASSR. The trip by train took about four weeks, with 50-60 people in each car..." (vol. 1, p. 348). The relaxation of these restrictions occurred only after Operation Barbarossa and "after the Soviet-Polish amnesty in August 1941, when all the deported Polish Jews were allowed to go to Central Asia." (ibid, p. 349, also accounts in Ch. 16). See also how 25,000 Polish refugees, many of them Jews, joined the Anders Army in late 1941. -- Deborahjay (talk) 09:49, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I can't locate the Snyder quote, but from my recollection the context was that sine Hitler's longterm plan was to deport all Jews to the occupied USSR anyway, it would make things easier for him if he could deport them there before even invading. --Gary123 (talk) 14:48, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

In the German translation of Snyders book the passage refers to a plan of January 1940 to send the 2 million Jews under Nazi rule (i.e. at that time the Jews of Germany and Poland) to the Jewish Autonomous Oblast in the USSR. This plan is also mentioned here, PDF, p. 18 of 23, based on a newspaper article by Sonja Zekri »Ein neues Madagaskar. Wie Hitler versuchte, Juden in die Sowjetunion umzusiedeln« in Süddeutsche Zeitung of 13 June 2005. A recent newspaper article states that President Medwedjew wants or wanted to attract 2.000 Jewish settlers for the Jewish Autonomous Oblast right now in August, 2013. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 20:17, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

September 10

Does anyone here have a subscription to Time Magazine?

If so, would you care to provide me with the full text of this article? I want to see if it can be used for referencing purposes at Hindawi affair. Kurtis ^(talk) 08:09, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

The usual place for such requests is WP:REX. Someone here may be willing to oblige, though. Deor (talk) 08:23, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I was actually not aware of that page. But the reference desks seem to get more attention than the WikiProject, so I'll leave this thread open for the time being. Kurtis ^(talk) 11:21, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

If Jesus died for our sins...

...why do people go to hell? Google yields nothing authoritative: i'm after the 'official', theological answer, what the Pope (for example) would say if i asked him.

Thanks much for your attention, friendly wikipedians! Dan Hartas (talk) 13:28, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

This is pretty standard Christian theology. You have to seek salvation, it's not automatic. Where have you searched so far? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 13:33, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

just several variants on that question, i'm bad at creative googling. i know that answer, but it doesn't satisfy the fallacy i'm trying to get to grips with. a utilitarian (or most people with standard moral sentiments, and a strong stomach), in a world with the Christian God, would surely be justified in killing all newborns immediately after baptism, so that only one person has to suffer the eternal torment of hell, and the rest of the human population gets to live in paradise. i guess the standard answer to that point is: that's essentially what Jesus did, in taking on the sins of the world and suffering for them. i was asking the question because i was wondering how that is squared with people going to hell post-Christ. (asking as an atheist apologist) Dan Hartas (talk) 13:48, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm a Christian, but not really interested in being an apologist here. (It's OR anyways.) The basic idea of salvation (along with other ideas from the New Testament) doesn't really support this kind of "utilitarian" viewpoint. This doesn't necessarily indicate a fallacy- it's a point of view explicitly expressed in the NT stories. See the parable of the shepherd (representing God) who leaves his 99 sheep alone to chase after the 1 who ran away. Or the prodigal son, in which the son who ran away is at least temporarily honored more than the faithful son. Staecker (talk) 16:27, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Official views differ, usually only slightly (but hard-liners would obviously disagree). See Salvation (Christianity). Staecker (talk) 13:41, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

A related discussion is archived at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2013 August 26#"burning in hell" metaphor.

—Wavelength (talk) 14:15, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

The key concept here is universal reconciliation, which is believed by some Christians but not others, but far more in the first and the last two centuries of Christianity than in the intervening 16. I don't know if any religious authority has considered this, but it seems like such a change in outlook might be linked with the broad concept of apocatastasis and the lifting of curses. It seems like in recent times, childbirth doesn't need to be painful, nakedness is not shameful, menstruation is optional, work becomes ever more scarce (and perhaps our societies will even come to accept that), even the serpent's sting is no longer so deadly. Why should the Garden of Eden not seem to be drawing near? Wnt (talk) 19:32, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

"Menstruation is optional...?" How so? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:49, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

[1] Wnt (talk) 222:09, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Wow, science marches on! Thanks for that link. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:21, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I've always considered menstruation a shocking design flaw, so anything science can do to improve on our Maker's basic concepts is welcome. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:54, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, remember that the actual religious idea is that the Garden of Eden design was better (though the informal story of menstruation being the curse of Eve is not really a clear part of it). This is really not that different from the scientific notion that there is a "best design" (or set of designs) for an organism filling an ecological niche, which evolution approximates to a limited extent - provided, that is, one sees Eden as a set of archetypes or a prior version of the cosmos rather than as part of the physical past in the mundane physics sense of time. Wnt (talk) 04:40, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

It depends on your understanding of the key concepts of Hell, baptism, afterlife and salvation. For one, baptism requires a conscious decision on the part of the baptised, so infant baptism doesn't count. That practice evolved from Roman pagan dedication rituals. Salvation was made available to humanity because of Christ's death, but it must still be actively attained. There is no such thing as "once saved, always saved", I don't know where people keep getting that from. Plasmic Physics (talk) 22:43, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

"infant baptism doesn't count"? Dan is asking for official doctrine, so obviously infant baptism does count for millions of christians. He even specifically mentioned the Pope, who very much does believe in infant baptism. I invite you to visit google to verify that there is indeed such thing as "once saved always saved", and you might even learn where it came from. These are doctrines which massive numbers of people believe in. Whether these doctrines are true or not is not the point here. Obviously from the question Dan doesn't think any of them are true. Staecker (talk) 23:44, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

It is official doctrine, I just forgot to mention whose it was (Baptists, Adventists, etc.). I'm not saying "once saved always saved" is not part of some doctrine, only that it is not supported by Scripture, but since we're not discussing the veracity of doctrine, I guess that whether it is supported or not would be a moot point. Plasmic Physics (talk) 00:03, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Sweet. Where can I get one of those 'once saved' things, or am I already good since I was baptized already? It'd be nice to have that in my pocket. --Onorem (talk) 00:06, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

It is worth mentioning the lake of fire motif with Ammit, as there is apparently/arguably an Egyptian connection to Israelite philosophies. (I should add that the diversity of the ancient Egyptian concept of the soul is worth considering. It's tempting to project modern or foreign interpretations on this (and I'm afraid what little I've read of the topic has done so), but whether it is ancient interpretations of the ba, ka, "heart", shadow, and name of the deceased, or modern conceptions of the unique soul, atman, genome, "memome", the soul of a person washed of evil/suffering in the waters of Lethe, etc., there would seem to be quite a range of ideas to work with. Wnt (talk) 07:07, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

• The simplest answer, with the broadest application to the most branches of Christianity, is that Jesus died for all people who choose to believe in Him and follow his teachings, for any given value of "believe" and "follow". Hell is for those who choose to not believe and follow. All people have the ability to choose to follow and believe, so all people have the option to avoid hell. John 3:16 is probably the most consice statement in the bible to support this view, and most Christian branches hold this as core to their theology, though of course, they may differ on what believing in and following Jesus entails on the individual level, most that I can think of at least conceptually agree with this notion of salvation and hell. --Jayron32 16:54, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

However, considering that the OP mentioned the pope, it should be noted that the official Roman Catholic position is not that Jesus died for "all people who choose to believe in Him and follow his teachings", but rather that He died for every single human being, including those that reject God. ("There is not, never has been, and never will be a single human being for whom Christ did not suffer.", Catechism of the Catholic Church, 605). In light of that position, it is a legitimate question how it would be just to punish people for sins that were already paid for by Jesus on the cross. - Lindert (talk) 18:31, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Here's more on the Catholic view of the subject, which may explain some things:[2] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:13, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Again, the Catholic view is not at all in conflict with my statement. Since all people can choose to believe, all people can choose to accept Christ's gift. The statement you presented from the Catholic church confirms exactly that. --Jayron32 09:28, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Private schools vs. public schools

In this article, it seems that the author concludes, "In short, today's study shows that sending your kid to private school — particularly one run by a holy order like the Jesuits — is still a better way to ensure that he or she will get into college. Just don't expect all education experts to agree." The basis for the line of thinking is that the author presumes that Catholic schools train students to think critically, or students in Catholic schools just happen to be trained to think critically, so they do better on the SAT than public school students. I would like to know what factors may play into the higher SAT scores. Are Catholic parents generally wealthier enough to send their kids to private Catholic schools in the first place and so they could afford private tutoring and other parental involvement for their children? What is the difference between sending a child to a Benedictine school versus a Jesuit school in terms of education? Finally, how many non-Catholic parents would send their children to a Catholic school? Finally, is this talking about public schools as a whole, including poor inner-city public schools and high-functioning suburban public schools (due to being funded by the property taxes of wealthier landowners)? 140.254.226.240 (talk) 13:51, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Not an American, but an Australian teacher here, but I'm sure there are many parallels. Claims such as that in the article are statistical generalisations. Every student has to have relationships with several teachers in a school, dozens of them in most cases. Not everybody gets on with everybody else in the same way. That a school does statistically "better" on one measure does not mean that that school will be best for a particular child on all measures. The major advantages private schools have is that they tend to be chosen by parents who value education highly and that's reflected in the values of the students, and private schools can eliminate a lot of the lower performing kids, by many strategies. This means their results look better, even if teaching practices are no better, and potentially disruptive kids are removed. It ain't simple. HiLo48 (talk) 22:23, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Songwriters whose work is in the public domain (UK)

I'm looking for public domain songs, that I might be able to perform and record without having to worry about royalties. I don't mean traditional songs, they're fairly easy to find. What I'm after are songs in popular genres by identifiable songwriters/composers who died before 1943 (the law in the UK, where I live, is that copyright lasts for the life of the creator(s) plus 70 years), especially where recordings are available as my ability to read music is minimal. Any suggestions? --Nicknack009 (talk) 14:39, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• John Philip Sousa
• Zez Confrey
• Reverend Gary Davis
• Blind Boy Fuller
• Elizabeth Cotten
• Etta Baker

Yep, lots of good ragtime stars. 164.107.103.68 (talk) 15:44, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Links added, although Confrey, Davis, Cotten and James all died well after 1943. Rojomoke (talk) 16:46, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

As did Baker. I was only aware of Sousa as a composer of instrumental music, didn't know about his operettas, so that's something I could look into - although some of them bring up the complication of when his librettists died. Blind Boy Fuller is one of many blues musicians I could investigate. Thanks. Any more with any more? --Nicknack009 (talk) 18:43, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I somehow turned Etta Baker into Etta James. Rojomoke (talk) 06:10, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

It's certainly not the easiest approach, but you could look through pages like 1943#Deaths and skim the descriptions of the people listed. Katie R (talk) 19:42, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

German Togoland

The Germans made Togo into a colony/protectorate in 1884 until 1914. But how did the Germans treat the local Togolese? What facilities did the Germans build for them? Were there rights respected? --Coompararevsky (talk) 18:13, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Nope. Here's a good writeup: Germany's Treatment Of Native Peoples — A Dark Colonial Record. That's from 1940, when Germany wasn't too popular in some parts of the world. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 00:06, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

And a more modern look: Togo: German Colonial Rule. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 00:08, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

In another German colony in Africa, German Southwest Africa now Namibia, there was the Herero and Namaqua Genocide in 1904-7 which is fairly well documented. Alansplodge (talk) 07:35, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Deer in Wales

The white-tailed deer is very popular in Texas (USA). What species of deer are most popular in Wales? --Christie the puppy lover (talk) 19:10, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Numbers are hard to come by but Wales has Red deer, Fallow deer, Roe deer, Sika deer and Muntjac Deer. See also Annex 1 of Wild Deer managemnt in Wales from the Forestry Commission. Nanonic (talk) 19:25, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Which ones have the bigest antlers?--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 19:48, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

You can tell by the size of their shoes. μηδείς (talk) 21:26, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Deer species in Wales confirms that fallow deer are the most numerous. Red deer (originally native, but now only a few small populations of escapees from deer parks) are the largest animals and can have impressively large antlers. Red deer are now farmed for venison in Wales.[3] Alansplodge (talk) 07:30, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

"Wales has the smallest population of wild deer in UK".[4] Alansplodge (talk) 10:13, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. You are a deerling darling!--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 11:14, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

The Copeland Gang

Does anyone have any information on the "foot adze" that were used in building the scaffolding that hung the Copeland Gang? The famous Southern Outlaws. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.216.50.88 (talk) 21:18, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Foot and adze seem to have nothing in common, unless one is contemplating chopping off one's own or others' feet with a Stone Age edging implement. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:32, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

How about Adze#Foot adze. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 00:32, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Or this? (See the third paragraph, last sentence.) Bielle (talk) 00:40, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks both. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 02:07, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

September 11

Defense against rape accusations in India

The defense lawyer in the 2012 Dehli gang rape case said that his defendants were not guilty because the victims deserved what happened to them for being unmarried and out late together. Is this an actual legal defense? I would expect such an argument to be blocked, a lawyer making it to be thrown off the case, and probably to be disbarred, if he made the argument in the US. I know in the past in the US a woman's dress or behavior was used to argue consent, and that no rape happened. But the lawyer here is not declaring consent-he's supposedly saying they deserved the rape and beating. Is this an alowable defense, and is there a theory that names it? μηδείς (talk) 03:19, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

"alowable defense" [sic] is not a recognized concept in most common law, to my knowledge. There are common motifs that defense attorneys use, such as "circumstantial evidence", but there's rarely a codification of those distinctions in the actual law. The most relevant example I can think of to your question is the question of marital rape, which was widely said to be "not a crime" until the change in the law. That "not a crime" statement is true under old school common law, but whether or not that held true under a multitude of jurisdictions in post civil war America (Britain had similarly abandoned most of these old black letter common law rules too), I think that's a phd worthy topic. I haven't ever read any legal scholarship on that point. My instinct is that you're viewing a lawyer's obligation for a defense as some example of the absurdity of common law adversarial legal systems. I have serious doubts that your premise is correct. I seriously doubt that Indian law has some categorical exception to rape based on a woman's dress. If they did, and we can cite it, please point it out. It will certainly be a major topic until it's fixed. I highly doubt that's the case. Shadowjams (talk) 08:09, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

It is not "my premise", I am asking a question, not making an argument. μηδείς (talk) 17:42, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Contributory negligence is an obvious article to link, as is Victim blaming, which references the case in question. Where the former is argued, though, there is not usually any attempt to argue the total blamelessness of the perpetrator, but only to offer mitigation. Your example of "the victim deserved it" goes one step further than than "the victim didn't take reasonable precautions to avoid it" by arguing that the perpetrator is merely the automatic instrument of the victim's self-inflicted injury, rather like the sea in the case of a person who drowned during a drunken swim. I haven't found any references to this as a successful defence strategy in modern times or to a technical term for it, although I wouldn't be surprised to do so somewhere along the line. -Karenjc 08:55, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Often this sort of thing gets misreported. Take the Italian "jeans" case — what the Court of Cassation said was that it is difficult to remove such jeans by force, so it's evidence that the accuser cooperated. You might not think that's a very strong evidentiary argument, and maybe you're right — but what they absolutely did not say was that she must have been a loose woman for wearing such tight jeans, and that's the interpretation that got publicly presented. --Trovatore (talk) 08:32, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Also worth noting that those statements by the lawyer were not made in court, but in media interviews. Deciding whether he was just trying to gain public "sympathy" for his clients, notoriety for himself, or expressing his true thoughts would be speculative on my part. Abecedare (talk) 10:13, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

It's perhaps worth noting that the name of the lawyer said to have made the statement in our article is stated in this article [5] to no longer be representing anyone in the case and was potentially only ever representing one of the accused anyway. The same source suggests the lawyers have been publicling sniping at each other (not exactly uncommon in this sort of thing thoroughout the world AFAIK) and also seems to provide more detail on their defences and also near the end further explaination for what that earlier lawyer was saying (which was not that they raped and killed her but it was her own fault so they don't deserve to be punished). From what I read, one of the basic aspects of the defence has been that most of confessions were coerced also generally mentioned in other sources [6]. Nil Einne (talk) 13:39, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I was wondering if this was actually made in court rather than to the press. But an American judge would have no problem removing the lawyer for his statements to the press. Again, what strikes me here is that the comments don't deny there was a rape. They justify the rape. If those familiar with Indian jurisprudence can say this sort of hyperbole (if you can call it that) is common I can accept that. What I am wondering is, are the lawyer's statements in this case to be expected under some common concept like, say, honor killing, or is this an unusual tactic? μηδείς (talk) 17:42, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Medeis, can you find us a quote of what was actually said? The question about your "premise", above, is that frankly most of us don't believe the lawyer ever said this. He might have said something that someone took to mean what you say, but that's a different matter. --Trovatore (talk) 18:17, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

It's in our article:

Mukesh Singh, Vinay Sharma, Akshay Thakur and Pawan Gupta denied the charges.[74][75] On 10 January, their lawyer, Manohar Lal Sharma, said in a media interview that the victims are responsible for the assault because they should not have been using public transportation and, as an unmarried couple, they should not have been on the streets at night. He went on to say: "Until today I have not seen a single incident or example of rape with a respected lady. Even an underworld don would not like to touch a girl with respect."[76] He also called the male victim "wholly responsible" for the incident because he "failed in his duty to protect the woman".[76]

and has been widely reported in the press where I first read of it. How did this become about me? μηδείς (talk) 20:54, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Hmm? I never said it was about you. No one else did either.

I don't see anything in the quote that claims the rape was justified. Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending what the lawyer said; it was not a good thing to say under the circumstances, but it doesn't say it was OK or that it wasn't rape. (I have since looked up some of the links presented, and it doesn't appear that the lawyer claims that there was no rape; he says his (former?) client didn't do it.)

The only thing I can see there that might lead you to present the quote as saying the rape was justified was the line about the companion being "wholly responsible", but the only way that would imply justification is if you think of responsibility as some sort of a pie that can be divided up, and the pieces have to total 100%, never more and never less (well, at least never more). It's a big logical leap to assume the lawyer meant it that way. --Trovatore (talk) 21:09, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I am not interested in discussing your opinion of my opinion. The question stands, and answers like Nil's that the lawyer is not or no longer involved in the case are much more enlightening. μηδείς (talk) 21:19, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about your opinion. In your question, you said the lawyer said "his defendants were not guilty because the victims deserved what happened to them". But no, in fact, he did not say that, or at least if he did, it has not been reported in the quotes given. --Trovatore (talk) 08:33, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

What sentence could William Ruto face?

At the International Criminal Court? thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiplimo Kenya (talk • contribs) 03:22, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

According to this document: "If the judges find Ruto and/or Sang guilty, the court can sentence them to a length of time in prison and/or order property taken in order to pay reparations to victims. Ruto and Sang will not receive the death penalty if found guilty, as that is prohibited under ICC rules. If they are found not guilty, they will go free and will retain the presumption of innocence." Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:44, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Links:William Ruto, Joshua Sang, Henry Kosgey, 2007–08 Kenyan crisis. -- ToE 12:49, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

..and, more specifically, International Criminal Court investigation in Kenya. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:39, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Imperial Roman Army Picture Error

In the Imperial Roman Army section there is an error in one of the pictures. The picture is the typical Roman Soldier that is pictured from all directions. The error is that the strap on the shield in the picture is vertical while straps on Roman's shields are horizontal. if you could please change this minute detail it would be much appreciated by a hard-core Roman history fan Chaimek (talk) 04:49, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I assume you're talking about [7] / [8]? The problem is, these pictures are based on an autoCAD file that we may not have. The author Strikerg13 hasn't been active for a year - you can try e-mailing him, maybe he still gets Wiki emails. Wnt (talk) 07:19, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Model is from an Autodesk 3DS Max file from Rome Total War mod called Roma Surrectum II. The "author" probably didn't get permission to use the model from its creator.
Sleigh (talk) 09:48, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I've asked Wikipedia Media Copyright Questions to look into the copyright question. 184.147.119.141 (talk) 12:10, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

For the curious, surrectum means "rises", not what it looks like it means... MChesterMC (talk) 15:56, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Some discussion on how Roman shields were held is here. Apparently only one rectangular example has ever been found. Alansplodge (talk) 21:00, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Things could be worse. According to some "film flubs" sources, a Roman guard at the crucifixion in the movie King of Kings was seen wearing a wrist watch in his scene. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:17, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

What now for Thompson and De Blasio campaigning?

So the NY Democratic Mayoral Primary is on a knife-edge. With 98% of votes counted De Blasio has 40.2%, enough to avoid a runoff. But there are still the 2% to count from absentee ballots, and they could quite believably push De Blasio to 39.9%, thus triggering a second election in 3 weeks time against Bill Thompson.

Here's my question: The absentee ballots won't be entirely counted (according to the media) for days, maybe until next week. What do the candidates do until then? If De Blasio falls to 39.9% then he and Thompson can hardly afford to miss the first third of the campaign not doing anything. But if it doesn't then De Blasio won't want to waste resources fighting Democrats when he could save them up fight Lhota with. And Thompson will (presumably) endorse and assist De Blasio to win the general election if he's the party nominee, so he may not want to slam him for a week. What is the usual course of events? Do the campaigns pause? 86.163.125.91 (talk) 09:44, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

human guinea pigs

Is Nazi Germany the last time non-consenting human beings were used for medical experiments? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.25.4.14 (talk) 10:40, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

No, the US did a lot of this too. Look at Tuskegee syphilis experiment and the whole set of unethical human experimentation in the United States. I doubt they're alone. The UK had some similar issues with chemical weapons trials from Porton Down and Nancekuke, where servicemen 'volunteered' for trials, but without knowledge of just what they were being exposed to. At least one died at the time. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:06, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Saying the US did "a lot" of this is a bit of an exaggeration. These links at google give lists of such experiments, some associated with the Soviet Union, but they may not be reliable. μηδείς (talk) 17:31, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Many countries carried out small scale experiments of dubious morality. However the USA also had a number of large-scale epidemiological studies, looking at disease spread in populations, radiological and bacterial contamination. They carried out large dispersal experiments over populated areas - and of course those around the Nevada and Micronesia test sites. I know of no other country (possibly the UK nuke tests in Australia) that carried out any similar experiments on a comparable scale. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:24, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

See also Human subject research and Human experimentation in North Korea. -Karenjc 15:12, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

See blood substitute. Nobody wants to be the victim of cheap reformulated expired blood products (actually, I doubt it'd really be cheaper, just more proprietary...) so virtually any experiment done with them involves non-consenting subjects, and ensuing fatalities. Wnt (talk) 22:39, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

A lot depends on how you define consenting. "Approximately 235,000 DoD military and civilian personnel participated in U.S. atmospheric nuclear tests that were conducted primarily in Nevada and the Pacific Ocean between 1945 and 1962", according to the Defense Threat Reduction Agency.[9] Clarityfiend (talk) 05:30, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Hindi literature

My history textbook says that while Urdu, Tamil, Bengali and Marathi print culture had developed eary, Hindi printing began seriously only from the 1870s. Why was this so? --Yashowardhani (talk) 14:31, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Down to the Mutiny of 1857, most of the potential patrons of literature in the core "Hindustani"-speaking areas would have been Muslims, who favored a Perso-Arabic influenced version of the language written in Arabic script, i.e. Urdu. The major non-English language of Indian nationalism in the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century seems to have been "Sanskritized Bengali" (see Vande Mataram, Jana Gana Mana etc.)... AnonMoos (talk) 22:10, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

How much money goes into the Roman Catholic Church every year?

Seeing that the Roman Catholic Church have so many parishes and hospitals and monasteries and academic institutions scattered abroad, how much money would go into the Roman Catholic Church each year? In terms of spendings, does it spend money on philanthropic causes, and if so, how much does it spend and to where does it spend? 164.107.214.48 (talk) 15:56, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Here is some information for the RCC in America specifically; not worldwide, but it does give some information as to American catholicism --Jayron32 16:47, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Some partial info at Peter's Pence#The revived Roman Catholic custom... -- AnonMoos (talk) 22:06, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Grandchildren of Henry VIII - supposed daughters of his son Henry FitzRoy

The articles about Henry VIII of England and Henry FitzRoy, 1st Duke of Richmond and Somerset, claim that the latter "left two illegitimate daughters". The claim is sourced to page 255 of Sir Geoffrey Elton's book called Reform and Reformation: England, 1509-1558. I've found the book on Google Books, but I cannot access the 255th page. What exactly does it say? I have a hard time believing that so little would be known about the only grandchildren of Henry VIII, who would have had some claim to the throne during the reign of their childless half-aunt (who, by the way, would have been younger than them). Surtsicna (talk) 17:59, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I now see the information was first added by Grandiose on 19 March 2013, replacing the statement that Richmond died childless. I hope he'll respond to this ping :) Surtsicna (talk) 18:10, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't have the book available to me. It's certainly possible that I got confused, since Henry VIII himself left two (somewhat retrospectively) illegitimate daughters, so I'm sorry I can't be of more help verifying or correcting this. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:34, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

It does seem strange for a 17-year-old, though obviously not impossible. (Curiously, there is a reference to "two illegitmate daughters" in this biography of FitzRoy, although in reference to his maternal greatgrandfather, Sir Hugh Peshall. Source of confusion or just a coincidence of wording?) You can request a pdf of the missing page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request; they did that for me recently.184.147.119.141 (talk) 22:17, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

The passage in the Elton book reads: "Henry in fact at this point had three illegitimate children—Henry duke of Richmond, Mary and Elizabeth. It was widely thought that he would leave the throne to the first, but the boy died in late June, leaving only two bastardized offspring, both girls". Elton does not cite a source. The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography entry on FitzRoy mentions nothing about them.--Britannicus (talk) 22:52, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Well I defend my right to be confused from that (!), but I think if they aren't mentioned elsewhere, the two bastardized offspring are Mary and Elizabeth. Thanks Britannicus. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 22:58, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Ha, yes it is convoluted. I thought the two daughters was referring to FitzRoy as well, not Henry!--Britannicus (talk) 23:04, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

The confusion is justified, of course. I've corrected the articles. Thank you all! Surtsicna (talk) 11:16, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Russian Beauharnais

Why weren't the children of Maximilian de Beauharnais, 3rd Duke of Leuchtenberg raised in their father's religion? A similar Russianization occurred with the descendants of Duke George of Oldenburg (who also died when his children were young) but they retained their Lutheran faith except for one granddaughter who married a Russian grand duke.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 19:14, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Are the references in Grand Duchess Maria Nikolaevna of Russia (1819–1876) enough? (Belyakova, Zoia. Grand Duchess Maria Nikolayevna and her palace in St Peterburg. Ego Pubushers, ISBN 5-8276-0011-3 and Radzinsky, Edvard. Alexander II, The Last Great Tsar. Free Press, 2005, ISBN 0-7432-7332-X.) As I read the article, these books used to source two reasons: Because religion was a condition of his marriage and because the children were brought up in Russia, in the care of their maternal uncle Tsar Alexander II. 184.147.119.141 (talk) 22:20, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Who saw Christian art?

I have heard several times that the decoration in Medieval churches served as a Poor Man's Bible. Illiterates (i.e., most of the people) could find images of the people and stories that priests talked about. However, when visiting Gothic or Romanesque sites, I have difficulties to appreciate a lot of the art. It is too small or too far for me to see. I am remembering in special the windows of the Sainte Chapelle in Paris. I don't have a perfect sight but we count on electrical lighting while Medievals had to rely on candles and sunlight, and Medieval masses did not have optical corrections (while natural selection would have removed the worst sighted).

So my questions are:

• Did Medieval people actually see their Christian art?
• How was it applied? Did preachers during Mass point to specific depictions or did the faithful learn who was who elsewhere?

--Error (talk) 23:46, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I think the idea that they could somehow learn Christian messages from images is pretty silly. You don't need images to tell a story. You can just...tell the story. The images add next to nothing. What they do is create a sense of majesty, power, spectacle and glory. They are a portal into a "magical" world of beauty and sophistication. The interpretation of the images gives the viewer an emotional connection between the experience and the ideas they convey. Of course that was one of the Protestant criticisms of Catholic use of images, especially as visual deception became more powerful during the Renaissance (see the work of the Correggio or Cortona). Did medieval people see the art? Yes, of course, but not as clearly as we do. Did the preachers point out images? Yes, they did, and there is evidence from sermons that they did. But it was not a major feature of preaching. Most likely the laity learned the meaning of images from local priests. Paul B (talk) 00:33, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Electric lighting doesn't add anything to a Gothic cathedral during the day. Sainte-Chapelle is quite bright inside, as is Notre Dame. Does Notre Dame even have any lights on during the day? I can't remember, but the similar cathedral in Nantes doesn't need any, sunlight is perfectly sufficient. That's what all the windows are for! Some of the art is too far away, but remember that when these churches were built, people could go up to the higher floors and up to the top of the towers. Usually you can't walk up there anymore because it's unsafe (unless it has been restored to make it safe, like Notre Dame). There is also art on the exterior of these churches - Gothic cathedrals typically have art above the main doorway, depicting Judgement Day. Also, you may have trouble appreciating or understanding the art because we are mostly unfamiliar with it now. If that was the normal way that you learned about the Bible, the images would be more familiar to you. Note that even modern Catholic churches have a lot of art, such as depictions of the Stations of the Cross. People still learn that way, if they go to church. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:00, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

People in those days also were typically illiterate, as well as being more "into" the church. Certainly the illustrations reinforced the biblical lessons. Some say that they were in some sense a "library" for the illiterate. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:14, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

The Great East Window at York Minster has illustrations of Bible stories on glass panels about 3 feet square and it's the size of a tennis court standing on its end,[10] starting about 10 feet off the ground. Some panels have "speech bubbles" of Gothic writing on little scrolls coming from the characters mouths. There is no way that they can be read from the ground, even with binoculars. I'm fairly certain that they were intended for God to read, because humans couldn't. Alansplodge (talk) 08:36, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

You really can't read the "story" of most medieval images unless you know what they are suppossed to mean already. You need someone to tell you that they mean something. And of course, you don't then need the image to lean the meaning - because you have been told it. The images were not in any true sense a "library" for the illiterate. You have to be able to read yourself to use a library, whether it is visual literacy or or textual literacy we mean. The meaning was pointed out by priests, thus reinforcing their role as intermediaries between the laity and the divine and building into the space itself the Catholic idea of the role of the church - represented by both the building and the priests. Paul B (talk) 09:30, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Images can act as mnemonics, helping the illiterate parishioner to remember the story they'd been told. --Nicknack009 (talk) 10:02, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

By the way, the Poor Man's Bible article that is already linked, along with Gothic art and Gothic architecture, and the sources listed in those articles (this is a pretty well-documented subject) give a good idea of how this kind of art was used. Maybe it seems unbelievable that they were used to teach people...but nevertheless, that's what happened. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:11, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I was doing a cycle tour of the (very Catholic) German Münsterland this summer, and for the first time noticed that many of the churches had illustrations of the Stations of the Cross along the side walls. I can easily imagine that these serve very much to fix the story and the interpretation of the events in the mind of someone who regularly is exposed to them in the context of a service that references them. It's quite a striking illustration, and it breaks the story into individual highlights. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:49, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

September 12

National Flower of Germany?

Hello, what is the national flower of Germany? Seems like a strange question from a German, but several English-language sources (mostly botanical Q&A books and notably the EB) claim, that it's the cornflower. This flower was used as symbol in the 19th century, and later sparingly by nationalistic circles pre-WWII. However, i haven't come across any official or semi-official usage of this flower in modern-day Germany - it's simply out of use on a national level. Is a national symbol, that is not widely used by anyone, still a national symbol? Could someone point me to an academic or official political statement about the actual situation in Germany? GermanJoe (talk) 08:47, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I'll leave the academic reference to others, but I did try searching the official government site. The cornflower is mentioned only once, in a picture caption. [11] Floral emblem claims oak is a second possibility, but again the only references on the government site are to oaks in general in other contexts (and no hits for Eichenlaub). (Though it is on the Euro). See also Nationales Symbol. Possible that there's no official status at all? That's what's said in this (nonacademic) book ("Germany does not have a national flower, but if it had one, the cornflower might be it...") 184.147.120.88 (talk) 12:59, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Names that used to be considered stereotypical for black Americans

I recall reading a text some time back from the first half of the twentieth century that mentioned the different names that were popular to give to babies among black and white Americans. I was interested at how the names listed as "black names" didn't have the same connotations for me as they evidently did for the author; "Sam" is the only one I remember. What are some other names that used to be used primarily by black Americans but no longer carry strong racial connotations? --superioridad ^(discusión) 09:07, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

There are a number of names which had strongly black connotations in the 19th century United States ("Cuffee", "Pompey" etc.) but aren't much used today... AnonMoos (talk) 09:46, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

A more recent one might be "Amos", which was a stereotypical name when Amos 'n' Andy was popular, but not so much today, with actors like John Amos not ashamed of the name. (I don't think "Andy" had the same problem, at the time, since it was quite a common name among whites.) StuRat (talk) 09:49, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I tried googling to find more examples of African American names but most of the sites were either useless or overtly racist. I doubt anyone seriously does any academic research on this type of thing today. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 11:07, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

It's a good bet that names like Denzel and Shaniqua are primarily assigned to black kids, while names like Winthorpe are probably more often assigned to whites. I know there are sites that list popular names, and it wouldn't surprising if there is a racial or ethnic breakdown. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:40, 12 September 2013 (UTC)